Dynamically balance and angular momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concepts of angular momentum and torque in rotating systems. It highlights confusion regarding the direction of torque, which is stated to be counterclockwise in the Wikipedia article, while the user perceives it as clockwise based on their reasoning. The user notes that angular momentum points along the rotation axis and suggests that the torque should correspond to the change in angular momentum, leading to their conclusion. Clarification is sought on the relationship between the rotation direction, angular momentum, and torque. The conversation emphasizes the need for a clearer understanding of these fundamental physics concepts.
sgh1324
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_of_rotating_masses

See the image in that page.

I know intuitively why a direction of torque is counterclockwise-because of a centrifugal force.

But an direction of angular momentum of that shaft with attached weights (ignore the shaft mass) is southeast direction.

And a torque of that body is an inward of page, which means clockwise direction.

Why I gets this conclusion? somebody help me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not clear what you are trying to calculate from what, how?
What is your reasoning?

Some notes:
angular momentum points along the rotation axis
torque is rate of change of angular momentum ...
 
the direction of angular momentum of that body is southeast direction.

and because of rotation, angular momentum rotates inward direction of page.

so, that means direction of torque(=chage of angular momentum) is clockwise.

but the wiki page said that the torque's direction is counterclockwise.

i can't understand wiki conclusion by reasoning - torque direction is clockwise.ps from note
angular momentum points along the rotation axis - you means that shaft?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top